STATE V. TONEY, 2002-NMSC-003, 131 N.M. 558, 40 P.3d 1002 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. MICHAEL TONEY, Defendant-Petitioner.
|
|
- Shanna Carter
- 5 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 1 STATE V. TONEY, 2002-NMSC-003, 131 N.M. 558, 40 P.3d 1002 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. MICHAEL TONEY, Defendant-Petitioner. Docket No. 26,618 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2002-NMSC-003, 131 N.M. 558, 40 P.3d 1002 February 01, 2002, Filed ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON CERTIORARI. Stephen Bridgforth, District Judge. State v. Toney, 130 N.M. 154, 20 P.3d 811 (2000) Rehearing Denied February 26, Released for Publication February 19, COUNSEL Gary C. Mitchell, P.C., Gary C. Mitchell, Ruidoso, NM, Garza Law Firm, Carmen E. Garza, Las Cruces, NM, Susan Gibbs, Santa Fe, NM, for Petitioner. Patricia A. Madrid, Attorney General, Joel Jacobsen, Assistant Attorney General, Santa Fe, NM, for Respondent. JUDGES PATRICIO M. SERNA, Chief Justice. WE CONCUR: JOSEPH F. BACA, Justice, PAMELA B. MINZNER, Justice, PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice, GENE E. FRANCHINI, Justice (dissenting). AUTHOR: PATRICIO M. SERNA OPINION {*558} {*1002} SERNA, Chief Justice. {1} Defendant Michael Toney was convicted following a jury trial of two counts of false imprisonment and one count of tampering with evidence. Defendant appealed a single issue, relating to a single count of false imprisonment, to the Court of Appeals: whether the trial court erred in admitting hearsay {*1003} {*559} testimony, either under the Rules of Evidence or under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court of Appeals affirmed by memorandum opinion based on this Court's opinions in State v. Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-33, 128 N.M. 44, 989 P.2d 419, cert. denied, 529 U.S. 1025, 146 L. Ed. 2d 323, 120 S. Ct (2000), and State v. Torres, 1998-NMSC-52, 126 N.M. 477, 971 P.2d This Court then granted Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari. We affirm.
2 2 I. Facts {2} The State charged Defendant with murder, false imprisonment, tampering with evidence, and various other crimes for his role in Ty Lowery's death. Defendant and several others were involved in an altercation with Lowery at Defendant's house. Lowery was shot at close range. Two witnesses, including Robert Aragon, an employee of Defendant, testified that Claudia Moreno shot Lowery. Adam Montoya, another employee of Defendant, took the wounded Lowery to a remote area and left him to die. Lowery's body was found at the remote location the following day. At trial, the State advanced the theory that Defendant ordered Moreno to shoot Lowery and then ordered Montoya to leave Lowery in an isolated area to die. The jury returned a verdict of guilty on two counts of false imprisonment and one count of tampering with evidence. II. Discussion {3} The sole issue presented to this Court is whether the trial court erred in admitting an out-of-court statement. Specifically, Defendant complains about Aragon's testimony concerning an out-of-court statement made to him by Montoya. Aragon had been at Defendant's house on the night of the shooting and left after witnessing the shooting. Aragon encountered Montoya the following day and testified that he asked Montoya what happened after he, Aragon, had left Defendant's house following the shooting. Aragon testified: "[Montoya] proceeded to tell me that he had driven [the victim] to the river on the direction from [Defendant], to leave [the victim] at the river." We note that this testimony implicitly contains two out-of-court statements: (1) Defendant's statement to Montoya to leave the victim at the river; and (2) Montoya's statement to Aragon that he took the victim to the river on Defendant's direction on the previous night. The first statement is not hearsay. Defendant's statement to Montoya was a directive or a command and was offered not for its truth but for the fact that it was made. See Rule (C) NMRA 2002; Jim v. Budd, 107 N.M. 489, 491, 760 P.2d 782, 784 (stating that "statements or conduct which are non-assertive are not hearsay," that "implied assertions are not hearsay," and that "the words, 'let the gates down against the chain,' is a direction and not an assertion that would either be true or false"); see also Fed. R. Evid. 801 advisory committee's note; cf. State v. Ross, 1996-NMSC-031, 122 N.M. 15, 20 n.2, 919 P.2d 1080, 1085 n.2 (concluding that a statement did not raise a "hearsay within hearsay" issue because the statement made by another to the declarant was not offered for its truth). Moreover, as the Court of Appeals observed, this statement would have been an admission by a party-opponent rather than hearsay even if it had been offered for its truth. Rule (D)(2)(a). The second statement identified above, however, is hearsay. Rule (C). The State offered Montoya's statement to Aragon under an exception to the hearsay rule, Rule (B)(3) NMRA 2002, and the trial court admitted the statement on this basis. Rule (B)(3) provides that a statement is not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable and the statement "so far tended to subject the declarant to... criminal liability... that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true." {4} Defendant does not challenge Montoya's unavailability. Defendant limits his claim of
3 3 error to his contention that Montoya's statement was not a statement against penal interest. In particular, Defendant claims that Montoya's statement to Aragon shows blame shifting and is therefore inherently unreliable. According to Defendant, {*560} this statement shows that Montoya was asserting a duress defense to Montoya's involvement in the crime. Defendant also claims that Aragon had a motive to lie because he made a deal with the State, which also made the statement unreliable. Thus, Defendant claims that the trial court abused its discretion in finding that this was a statement against penal interest admissible under Rule (B)(3). {5} As an initial matter, we point out that Aragon's motive to lie, as opposed to the declarant Montoya's, is wholly irrelevant to the question of the admissibility of Montoya's statement as an exception to the hearsay rule. Aragon testified in court and was subject to full and complete cross-examination. The hearsay rule is not concerned with the veracity of the testifying witness. "The test under the catch-all rules is whether the out-of-court statement-not the witness's testimony-has circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. The credibility of the witness, who is subject to cross-examination, is irrelevant to the trustworthiness analysis." State v. Williams, 117 N.M. 551, 561, 874 P.2d 12, 22 (1994). {6} With respect to Defendant's argument that the statement was not against Montoya's penal interest, we believe that the trial court correctly ruled that the statement is admissible under Rule (B)(3). Montoya's reference to his own involvement in the crime clearly falls within the parameters of this exception to the hearsay rule. Montoya admitted his involvement in serious crimes, including murder, and a reasonable person acting under similar circumstances would not have done so unless believing the statement to be true. Defendant argues, however, that Montoya's specific reference to acting on Defendant's direction is not against Montoya's penal interest. Defendant's argument is contrary to this Court's holdings in Torres and Gonzales. Montoya's reference to Defendant is a "facially-neutral but contextually-incriminating detail[] [that] may be admitted if a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have revealed [it] unless believing [it] to be true due to [its] strong tendency to subject the declarant to criminal liability." Torres, 1998-NMSC-52, P14. As with the statements at issue in Torres and Gonzales, Montoya's statement implicated him in serious crimes. The part of the statement referring to Defendant would provide necessary context to explain Montoya's motive for taking the victim to the river. This part of the statement also supports a conspiracy between Montoya and Defendant. The detail of Defendant's involvement "would significantly aid law enforcement officials in securing criminal liability" against Montoya, the declarant. Torres, 1998-NMSC-52, P17; accord Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-33, P11. Further, as with the declarant in Gonzales, Montoya "made his statement to an acquaintance in casual conversation. There is no indication that [he] did not understand his statement to be disserving or that [he] made his statement pursuant to self-interest or some other countervailing motive." 1999-NMSC-33, P34. Contrary to Defendant's assertion, there is no indication from Montoya's statement that Montoya believed that he acted under duress. Furthermore, there is no apparent reason for Montoya to have made a false assertion of duress to an acquaintance before becoming a suspect in the killing. We do not believe that Montoya's statement can reasonably be interpreted as shifting blame to Defendant.
4 {7} In short, Montoya's statement "so far tended to subject [him] to... criminal liability... that a reasonable person in [Montoya's] position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true." Rule (B)(3). Montoya's statement contains none of the dangers associated with out-of-court statements because his statement was unambiguous, it was genuinely contrary to his penal interest, it described events occurring on the night before the statement, and it concerned actions taken directly by Montoya. See Williams, 117 N.M. at , 874 P.2d at (discussing "the four primary dangers of hearsay," including the danger that the witness misinterpreted the declarant, the danger that the declarant consciously lied, the danger that the declarant had a faulty memory, and the danger that the declarant {*561} misperceived events). The trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the statement under Rule (B)(3). {8} Defendant also contends that the admission of Montoya's statement violates the Confrontation Clause in the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, as applied to New Mexico through the Fourteenth Amendment. Although Defendant references the right of confrontation in the New Mexico Constitution, he neither cites the specific provision in the Constitution providing this protection nor argues that the New Mexico Constitution should be interpreted more broadly than the Sixth Amendment in this context. See State v. Gomez, 1997-NMSC-6, PP22-23, 122 N.M. 777, 932 P.2d 1 (discussing preservation requirements for a state constitutional argument). In any event, this Court's opinion in Torres adequately addresses Defendant's reference to the state constitution. Torres, 1998-NMSC-52, P25, P26 n.3, P32. Therefore, we limit our discussion to Defendant's right of confrontation under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. {9} In order to protect a defendant's right of confrontation, the United States Supreme Court has indicated that an out-of-court statement made by an unavailable declarant which is offered against an accused must "bear[] 'adequate indicia of reliability.' Reliability can be inferred without more in a case where the evidence falls within a firmly rooted hearsay exception. In other cases, the evidence must be excluded, at least absent a showing of particularized guarantees of trustworthiness." Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 66, 65 L. Ed. 2d 597, 100 S. Ct (1980). In Torres, this Court held that Rule (B)(3) is a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule for Confrontation Clause purposes, largely because we had limited the reach of Rule (B)(3) in accordance with the United States Supreme Court's interpretation of Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) in Williamson v. United States, 512 U.S. 594, , 129 L. Ed. 2d 476, 114 S. Ct (1994). See Torres, 1998-NMSC-52, PP However, Defendant contends that Montoya's statement must be viewed as inherently unreliable pursuant to the plurality opinion of the United States Supreme Court in Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 144 L. Ed. 2d 117, 119 S. Ct (1999). Defendant's contention is inconsistent with our discussion of Lilly in Gonzales. {10} In Lilly, the plurality stated that the category of declarations against penal interests, as interpreted under Virginia's rules of evidence, is too broad to make generalizations for purposes 4
5 5 of a Confrontation Clause analysis and that accomplices' confessions to police inculpating a criminal defendant do not fall within a firmly rooted hearsay exception and therefore must be examined under the "particularized guarantees of trustworthiness" prong of the Confrontation Clause inquiry. Id. at 127, (plurality opinion). The defendant in Gonzales, like Defendant in the present case, argued that our Confrontation Clause analysis in Torres was in conflict with Lilly. Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-33, P32. We unanimously rejected this argument for two reasons. First, we believed that Lilly was distinguishable on its facts. Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-033, 034. Lilly involved a statement given to the police during a custodial interrogation in response to leading questions, and the declarant asserted that the defendant killed the murder victim. Id. ; see United States v. Shea, 211 F.3d 658, 669 (1st Cir. 2000) ("Lilly 's main concern was with statements in which, as is common in police-station confessions, the declarant admits only what the authorities are already capable of proving against him [or her] and seeks to shift the principal blame to another (against whom the prosecutor then offers the statement at trial)."), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1154, 148 L. Ed. 2d 973, 121 S. Ct (2001). By contrast, like the present case, Gonzales involved a statement made to an acquaintance in casual conversation, and the declarant acknowledged an active role in the killing. Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-33, P34. {11} Second, we rejected the defendant's reliance on Lilly in Gonzales because we concluded that Lilly did not preclude a determination {*562} that New Mexico's Rule (B)(3) is a firmly rooted exception. Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-33, P36. Beyond the fact that the firmly rooted exception discussion in Lilly was contained in a plurality opinion, and thus is not binding on this Court, see Shea, 211 F.3d at 669 (stating that "Lilly 's full reach may be unclear [because] there was no single 'majority' opinion"); Commonwealth v. Bridewell, 62 S.W.3d 370, 2001 Ky. LEXIS 221 (Ky. 2001) ("As a plurality opinion, [Lilly ] is not binding precedent on the issue of whether statements against penal interests are 'firmly rooted' for Confrontation Clause purposes."), we noted in Gonzales that "the co-conspirator's confession in Lilly would have failed to qualify as a statement against penal interest in New Mexico under Rule (B)(3), because the confession in that case did not inculpate the declarant as to the murder." Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-33, P37. Thus, Lilly concerned a broader exception to the hearsay rule than New Mexico's Rule (B)(3). As a result, based on our more restrictive construction of Rule (B)(3) in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion in Williamson, we determined that New Mexico's Rule (B)(3) is a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule because "the 'particularized guarantees of trustworthiness' imposed by the federal Confrontation Clause are inherently and necessarily a part of the statement-against-interest analysis under our Rule (B)(3)." Gonzales, 1999-NMSC-33, P39; accord United States v. Gallego, 191 F.3d 156, 167 n.5 (2d Cir. 1999) (declining to decide whether Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3), as interpreted in Williamson, is a firmly rooted exception but noting that Lilly "does not foreclose [that] possibility" because "any hearsay statement admitted consistent with the requirements of Rule 804(b)(3)... is considerably more reliable than the largely 'non-self-inculpatory' declaration disapproved by the plurality in Lilly "). In a recent unanimous opinion, we "reaffirmed that, in New Mexico, a statement against penal
6 interest within the meaning of Rule (B)(3) is a firmly rooted exception to the hearsay rule." State v. Martinez-Rodriguez, 2001-NMSC-29, P27, 33 P.3d {12} As we determined in Gonzales, Lilly is distinguishable from this case because Montoya made his statement to an acquaintance in a casual conversation rather than to the police during a custodial interrogation. For Confrontation Clause purposes, this distinction is critical. See, e.g., Denny v. Gudmanson, 252 F.3d 896, 903 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 311, 151 L. Ed. 2d 232 (2001); United States v. Westmoreland, 240 F.3d 618, (7th Cir. 2001); United States v. Boone, 229 F.3d 1231, 1234 (9th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 531 U.S. 1170, and cert. denied, 121 S. Ct (2001); Shea, 211 F.3d at 669; Stevens v. People, 29 P.3d 305, (Colo. 2001); State v. Henderson, 620 N.W.2d 688, (Minn. 2001); State v. Issa, 93 Ohio St. 3d 49, 752 N.E.2d 904, 919 (Ohio 2001). Because Montoya's statement is admissible under Rule (B)(3) and was not made during a custodial interrogation, Montoya's statement necessarily contains particularized guarantees of trustworthiness, and it is unnecessary for us to undertake any further inquiry into Defendant's Confrontation Clause argument. III. Conclusion {13} The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding the statement was admissible under Rule (B)(3) as a statement against penal interest. The admission of the statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause. We affirm Defendant's convictions of two counts of false imprisonment and one count of tampering with evidence. {14} IT IS SO ORDERED. PATRICIO M. SERNA, Chief Justice WE CONCUR: JOSEPH F. BACA, Justice PAMELA B. MINZNER, Justice PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Justice GENE E. FRANCHINI, Justice (dissenting) DISSENT FRANCHINI, Justice (dissenting).
7 7 {15} I respectfully dissent. {16} {*563} Adam Montoya did not testify at trial and therefore was not subject to cross-examination. However, over objection, Robert Aragon testified that Montoya told him that Defendant instructed Montoya to "leave [the victim] at the river." Montoya's statement to Aragon was hearsay and could not be admitted unless, pursuant to Rule (B)(3) NMRA 2002, it "so far tended to subject [Montoya] to... criminal liability... that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true." It is my opinion that because Montoya's statement attempted to shift blame from himself to Defendant, it was more exculpatory than inculpatory, and therefore lacked sufficient reliability to exempt it from the hearsay rule. {17} Furthermore, I agree with Defendant that the United States Supreme Court, in a plurality opinion, has expressed distrust for precisely this sort of evidence. Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 131, 144 L. Ed. 2d 117, 119 S. Ct (1999). In Lilly, the Court recognized that "accomplices' confessions that incriminate defendants" are "presumptively unreliable." Id. See also Denny v. Gudmanson, 252 F.3d 896, 903 (7th Cir. 2001) (describing "a confession that shifts or spreads blame from the declarant to incriminate co-criminals" as the type of statement "whose reliability is particularly suspect"). The record is devoid of other indications of reliability that would overcome my initial distrust. It is my opinion that the trial court's admission of this evidence without the possibility of cross-examination violates the confrontation clauses of both the United States and New Mexico constitutions. Contrary to the majority's conclusion, I would reverse the Court of Appeals and remand for a new trial on one count of false imprisonment. GENE E. FRANCHINI, Justice
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: U. S. (1999) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 98 5881 BENJAMIN LEE LILLY, PETITIONER v. VIRGINIA ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF VIRGINIA [June 10, 1999] CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST,
More informationSTATE V. HESTER, 1999-NMSC-020, 127 N.M. 218, 979 P.2d 729 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WESLEY DEAN HESTER, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. HESTER, 1999-NMSC-020, 127 N.M. 218, 979 P.2d 729 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WESLEY DEAN HESTER, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 24,251 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1999-NMSC-020,
More informationSTATE V. OTTO, 2007-NMSC-012, 141 N.M. 443, 157 P.3d 8 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. JESSE OTTO, Defendant-Respondent.
1 STATE V. OTTO, 2007-NMSC-012, 141 N.M. 443, 157 P.3d 8 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. JESSE OTTO, Defendant-Respondent. Docket No. 29,158 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2007-NMSC-012, 141
More informationSTATE V. SARRACINO, 1998-NMSC-022, 125 N.M. 511, 964 P.2d 72 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PETER ALLAN SARRACINO, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. SARRACINO, 1998-NMSC-022, 125 N.M. 511, 964 P.2d 72 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. PETER ALLAN SARRACINO, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 24,027 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1998-NMSC-022,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Certiorari Denied, No. 31,756, July 15, 2009 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2009-NMCA-089 Filing Date: May 28, 2009 Docket No. 28,948 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES. STOWERS, J. wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: DAN SOSA, JR., Senior Justice, WILLIAM RIORDAN, Justice AUTHOR: STOWERS OPINION
1 STATE V. WORLEY, 1984-NMSC-013, 100 N.M. 720, 676 P.2d 247 (S. Ct. 1984) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. CURTIS WORLEY, Defendant-Appellant No. 14691 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1984-NMSC-013,
More informationSTATE V. REYES, 2002-NMSC-024, 132 N.M. 576, 52 P.3d 948 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VALENTIN REYES, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. REYES, 2002-NMSC-024, 132 N.M. 576, 52 P.3d 948 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. VALENTIN REYES, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 26,304 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2002-NMSC-024,
More informationSTATE V. STEPHEN F., 2006-NMSC-030, 140 N.M. 24, 139 P.3d 184 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. STEPHEN F., a child, Defendant-Respondent.
1 STATE V. STEPHEN F., 2006-NMSC-030, 140 N.M. 24, 139 P.3d 184 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. STEPHEN F., a child, Defendant-Respondent. Docket No. 29,128 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2006-NMSC-030,
More informationFed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) The statement against interest exception.
Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) The statement against interest exception. 1 The declarations against interest exception is sometimes confused with the exemption for admissions. (Note: Under the restyled rules,
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NOS. 34,663 & 34,745 (consolidated)
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit
United States Court of Appeals For the First Circuit No. 13-1748 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Appellee, v. KYVANI OCASIO-RUIZ, Defendant, Appellant. APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, UNPUBLISHED March 9, 2001 v No. 217570 Wayne Circuit Court NICKOLA JUNCAJ and ANTON JUNCAJ, LC No. 98-002793 Defendants-Appellees.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2016-NMCA-058 Filing Date: April 18, 2016 Docket No. 33,823 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, JESS CARPENTER, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE V. SMITH, 2001-NMSC-004, 130 N.M. 117, 19 P.3d 254 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DARCY SMITH, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. SMITH, 2001-NMSC-004, 130 N.M. 117, 19 P.3d 254 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. DARCY SMITH, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 25,106 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2001-NMSC-004, 130
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. Opinion Number: Filing Date: July 19, Docket No. 32,589 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: July 19, 2012 Docket No. 32,589 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Petitioner, JOSE ALFREDO ORDUNEZ, Defendant-Respondent. ORIGINAL
More informationLilly v. Virginia Glimmers of Hope for the Confrontation Clause?
University of Michigan Law School University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository Articles Faculty Scholarship 2000 Lilly v. Virginia Glimmers of Hope for the Confrontation Clause? Richard D.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: May 6, 2011 Docket No. 29,143 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, JERICOLE COLEMAN, Defendant-Appellant. APPEAL FROM
More informationSTATE V. SMALLWOOD, 2007-NMSC-005, 141 N.M. 178, 152 P.3d 821 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAREN SMALLWOOD, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. SMALLWOOD, 2007-NMSC-005, 141 N.M. 178, 152 P.3d 821 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. KAREN SMALLWOOD, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 29,357 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2007-NMSC-005,
More informationAppellate Division, Third Department, People v. Young
Touro Law Review Volume 19 Number 2 New York State Constitutional Decisions: 2002 Compilation Article 6 April 2015 Appellate Division, Third Department, People v. Young Randy S. Pearlman Follow this and
More informationDocket No. 31,080 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2008-NMSC-063, 145 N.M. 280, 196 P.3d 1286 November 7, 2008, Filed
1 RUIZ V. VIGIL-GIRON, 2008-NMSC-063, 145 N.M. 280, 196 P.3d 1286 HARRIET RUIZ, ROSEMARIE SANCHEZ and WHITNEY C. BUCHANAN, Appellants, v. REBECCA D. VIGIL-GIRON, Appellee, and MARY HERRERA, in her capacity
More informationAs Corrected October 11, Released for Publication May 19, COUNSEL
U S WEST COMMC'NS V. NEW MEXICO PRC, 1999-NMSC-024, 127 N.M. 375, 981 P.2d 789 IN THE MATTER OF HELD ORDERS OF U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC. U S WEST COMMUNICATIONS, INC., a Colorado corporation, Appellant,
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TEXAS NO. PD-0570-11 GENOVEVO SALINAS, Appellant v. THE STATE OF TEXAS ON DISCRETIONARY REVIEW FROM THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS HARRIS COUNTY Womack, J., delivered
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 27,763. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY Douglas Driggers, District Judge
0 0 This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Denied January 19, 1994 COUNSEL
1 STATE V. CAVANAUGH, 1993-NMCA-152, 116 N.M. 826, 867 P.2d 1208 (Ct. App. 1993) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Patrick CAVANAUGH, Defendant-Appellant No. 14,480 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2009-NMSC-043 Filing Date: August 25, 2009 Docket No. 31,106 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Petitioner, NICOLE ANAYA, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationBENJAMIN LEE LILLY OPINION BY v. Record Nos , JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 5, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA
Present: All the Justices BENJAMIN LEE LILLY OPINION BY v. Record Nos. 972385, 972386 JUSTICE LAWRENCE L. KOONTZ, JR. November 5, 1999 COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED
More informationSTATE V. NIETO, 2000-NMSC-031, 129 N.M. 688, 12 P.3d 442 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LAWRENCE NIETO, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. NIETO, 2000-NMSC-031, 129 N.M. 688, 12 P.3d 442 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LAWRENCE NIETO, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 24,787 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2000-NMSC-031,
More information141 N.M. 713 (N.M. 2007), 160 P.3d 894. STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Petitioner, David S. MARTINEZ, Defendant-Respondent. No. 30,122.
141 N.M. 713 (N.M. 2007), 160 P.3d 894 STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. David S. MARTINEZ, Defendant-Respondent. No. 30,122. Supreme Court of New Mexico May 18, 2007 ORIGINAL PROCEEDING ON
More informationSTATE V. SOLIZ, 1968-NMSC-101, 79 N.M. 263, 442 P.2d 575 (S. Ct. 1968) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Santos SOLIZ, Defendant-Appellant
1 STATE V. SOLIZ, 1968-NMSC-101, 79 N.M. 263, 442 P.2d 575 (S. Ct. 1968) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Santos SOLIZ, Defendant-Appellant No. 8248 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1968-NMSC-101,
More informationThe John Marshall Law Review
Volume 20 Issue 3 Article 11 Spring 1987 Co-Conspirator Exemption from the Hearsay Rule and the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment: The Supreme Court Resolves the Conflict, 20 J. Marshall L. Rev.
More informationSTATE V. GONZALES, 1997-NMCA-039, 123 N.M. 337, 940 P.2d 185 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JOE GONZALES, Defendant-Appellee.
1 STATE V. GONZALES, 1997-NMCA-039, 123 N.M. 337, 940 P.2d 185 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. JOE GONZALES, Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 16,677 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1997-NMCA-039,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2010-NMSC-036 Filing Date: June 25, 2010 Docket No. 31,092 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Respondent, DAVID MAILMAN, Defendant-Petitioner.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF BERNALILLO COUNTY Judith K. Nakamura, District Judge
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: March 25, 2013 Document No. 32,915 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Petitioner and Cross-Respondent GREG COLLIER, Defendant-Respondent
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Denied April 27, 1984 COUNSEL
1 STATE V. WHITE, 1984-NMCA-033, 101 N.M. 310, 681 P.2d 736 (Ct. App. 1984) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RONNIE VAN WHITE, Defendant-Appellant. No. 7324 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1984-NMCA-033,
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, FOR PUBLICATION March 7, 2006 9:10 a.m. v No. 258571 Kalamazoo Circuit Court KYLE MICHAEL JONES, LC No. 04-000156-FJ
More informationIN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 20, 2006
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS OF TENNESSEE AT NASHVILLE Assigned on Briefs September 20, 2006 DENNIS PYLANT v. STATE OF TENNESSEE Appeal from the Criminal Court for Cheatham County No. 13469 Robert
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Denied May 8, 1990 COUNSEL
STATE V. CASTILLO, 1990-NMCA-043, 110 N.M. 54, 791 P.2d 808 (Ct. App. 1990) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. MARIO CASTILLO, Defendant-Appellant Nos. 11074, 11119 Consolidated COURT OF APPEALS
More informationIN RE TROY P., 1992-NMCA-120, 114 N.M. 525, 842 P.2d 742 (Ct. App. 1992) IN THE MATTER OF TROY P., a child, Respondent-Appellant.
1 IN RE TROY P., 1992-NMCA-120, 114 N.M. 525, 842 P.2d 742 (Ct. App. 1992) IN THE MATTER OF TROY P., a child, Respondent-Appellant. No. 13,361 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1992-NMCA-120, 114 N.M. 525,
More informationSTATE V. STAMPLEY, 1999-NMSC-027, 127 N.M. 426, 982 P.2d 477 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAMONE STAMPLEY, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. STAMPLEY, 1999-NMSC-027, 127 N.M. 426, 982 P.2d 477 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAMONE STAMPLEY, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 24,184 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1999-NMSC-027,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2017-NMSC-016 Filing Date: March 30, 2017 Docket No. S-1-SC-34775 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Petitioner, TREVOR MERHEGE, Defendant-Respondent.
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED October 20, 2005 v No. 263104 Oakland Circuit Court CHARLES ANDREW DORCHY, LC No. 98-160800-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. A-1-CA-37470
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. S-1-SC-36489
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this
More informationSTATE V. MUNOZ, 1998-NMSC-041, 126 N.M. 371, 970 P.2d 143 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. MANUEL MUNOZ, Defendant-Petitioner.
1 STATE V. MUNOZ, 1998-NMSC-041, 126 N.M. 371, 970 P.2d 143 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, vs. MANUEL MUNOZ, Defendant-Petitioner. Docket No. 24,054 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1998-NMSC-041,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2017-NMSC-019 Filing Date: May 15, 2017 Docket No. S-1-SC-35881 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, CLIVE PHILLIPS, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 32,043. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF CURRY COUNTY Teddy L. Hartley, District Judge
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: Filing Date: May 12, 2010 Docket No. 31,288 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. ALBERTO SAVEDRA, JOSE LOZANO, SR., and SCOTT YATES,
More informationSupreme Court of Florida
Supreme Court of Florida PERRY, J. No. SC09-536 ANTHONY KOVALESKI, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. [October 25, 2012] CORRECTED OPINION Anthony Kovaleski seeks review of the decision of the
More information1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: March 30, NO. S-1-SC STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
1 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: March 30, 2017 4 NO. S-1-SC-34775 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Petitioner, 7 v. 8 TREVOR MERHEGE, 9 Defendant-Respondent.
More informationSteven M. Sharp, for appellant. Bruce Evans Knoll, for respondent. This appeal raises the question whether a defendant can
================================================================= This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the New York Reports. -----------------------------------------------------------------
More informationSTATE V. SALAZAR, 1997-NMCA-043, 123 N.M. 347, 940 P.2d 195 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEE MIKE SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. SALAZAR, 1997-NMCA-043, 123 N.M. 347, 940 P.2d 195 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. LEE MIKE SALAZAR, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 16,977 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1997-NMCA-043,
More informationJoey D. Moya, Clerk New Mexico Supreme Court P.O. Box 848 Santa Fe, New Mexico (fax)
PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE DISTRICT COURTS, RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE MAGISTRATE COURTS, RULES OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE FOR THE METROPOLITAN COURTS, AND RULES
More informationIN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM v. CASE NO. 5D (CORRECTED) STATE OF FLORIDA,
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA FIFTH DISTRICT JULY TERM 2004 GARDINER S. SOMERVELL, Appellant, v. CASE NO. 5D03-1751 (CORRECTED) STATE OF FLORIDA, Appellee. / Opinion filed July
More informationPetition for Writ of Certiorari Denied March 24, 1993 COUNSEL
1 STATE V. WARE, 1993-NMCA-041, 115 N.M. 339, 850 P.2d 1042 (Ct. App. 1993) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Robert S. WARE, Defendant-Appellant No. 13671 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1993-NMCA-041,
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL:09/30/2015 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More information{*317} FRANCHINI, Justice.
1 HASSE CONTRACTING CO., INC. V. KBK FIN., INC., 1999-NMSC-023, 127 N.M. 316, 980 P.2d 641 HASSE CONTRACTING COMPANY, INC., Plaintiff-Counterdefendant-Respondent, vs. KBK FINANCIAL, INC., Defendant-Counterclaimant-Petitioner,
More informationNo COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 1975-NMCA-139, 88 N.M. 541, 543 P.2d 834 December 02, 1975 COUNSEL
1 STATE V. SMITH, 1975-NMCA-139, 88 N.M. 541, 543 P.2d 834 (Ct. App. 1975) STATE of New Mexico, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. Larry SMITH and Mel Smith, Defendants-Appellants. No. 1989 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES. Federici, J. wrote the opinion. WE CONCUR: H. VERN PAYNE, Chief Justice, DAN SOSA, JR., Senior Justice AUTHOR: FEDERICI OPINION
1 STATE V. GILBERT, 1982-NMSC-137, 99 N.M. 316, 657 P.2d 1165 (S. Ct. 1982) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. WILLIAM WAYNE GILBERT, Defendant-Appellant. No. 13564 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO
More informationSTATE V. MADDOX, 2008-NMSC-062, 145 N.M. 242, 195 P.3d 1254 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. TODD MADDOX, Defendant-Respondent.
1 STATE V. MADDOX, 2008-NMSC-062, 145 N.M. 242, 195 P.3d 1254 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Petitioner, v. TODD MADDOX, Defendant-Respondent. Docket No. 30,526 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2008-NMSC-062,
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. No. 33,257 5 FRANK TRUJILLO,
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2011-NMSC-008 Filing Date: February 17, 2011 Docket No. 31,409 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, v. Plaintiff-Appellee, VICTOR PAIZ, Defendant-Appellant.
More informationStrickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of
QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW Does the deficient performance/resulting prejudice standard of Strickland v. Washington 466 U.S. 668 (1984), still control claims of ineffective assistance of post-conviction
More informationMotion for Rehearing Denied May 13, Released for Publication May 13, COUNSEL
1 WEINSTEIN V. CITY OF SANTA FE EX REL. SANTA FE POLICE DEP'T, 1996-NMSC-021, 121 N.M. 646, 916 P.2d 1313 YAEL WEINSTEIN, CYNTHIA WEINSTEIN, and MEIR WEINSTEIN, Plaintiffs-Appellants, vs. CITY OF SANTA
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case Number BC v. Honorable David M.
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN NORTHERN DIVISION Plaintiff, Case Number 02-20005-BC v. Honorable David M. Lawson PATRICK A. CHAPIN, Defendant. / OPINION
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED January 26, 2010 v No. 286849 Allegan Circuit Court DENA CHARYNE THOMPSON, LC No. 08-015612-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSTATE V. DURAN, 2006-NMSC-035, 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHANIEL DURAN, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. DURAN, 2006-NMSC-035, 140 N.M. 94, 140 P.3d 515 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NATHANIEL DURAN, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 28,685 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2006-NMSC-035,
More informationReleased for Publication May 24, COUNSEL
VIGIL V. N.M. MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, 2005-NMCA-057, 137 N.M. 438, 112 P.3d 299 MANUEL VIGIL, Petitioner-Appellee, v. NEW MEXICO MOTOR VEHICLE DIVISION, Respondent-Appellant. Docket No. 24,208 COURT OF
More informationCOUNSEL JUDGES. Dan Sosa, Jr., Chief Justice. Joseph F. Baca, Justice, Gene E. Franchini, Justice, concur. AUTHOR: SOSA OPINION
STATE V. GONZALES, 1991-NMSC-075, 112 N.M. 544, 817 P.2d 1186 (S. Ct. 1991) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. RAYMOND L. GONZALES, a/k/a LOCO a/k/a MARIO a/k/a JOSEPH, Defendant-Appellant No.
More informationSTATE V. JIMENEZ, 2007-NMCA-005, 141 N.M. 106, 151 P.3d 67 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JESUS FRAIRE JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellee.
1 STATE V. JIMENEZ, 2007-NMCA-005, 141 N.M. 106, 151 P.3d 67 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. JESUS FRAIRE JIMENEZ, Defendant-Appellee. Docket No. 25,056 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2007-NMCA-005,
More informationCOLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2014 COA 41
COLORADO COURT OF APPEALS 2014 COA 41 Court of Appeals No. 12CA1223 El Paso County District Court No. 95CR2076 Honorable Leonard P. Plank, Judge The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellee,
More informationMotion for Rehearing: None COUNSEL
STATE V. WYROSTEK, 1994-NMSC-042, 117 N.M. 514, 873 P.2d 260 (S. Ct. 1994) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. VANCE WYROSTEK, Defendant-Appellee. No. 20,696 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1994-NMSC-042,
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. S-1-SC APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF EDDY COUNTY Jane Shuler-Gray, District Judge
This decision was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 1-0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of non-precedential dispositions. Please also note that this
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. No. A-1-CA-37409
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note
More informationSTATE V. SOSA, 1997-NMSC-032, 123 N.M. 564, 943 P.2d 1017 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JESSE SOSA, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. SOSA, 1997-NMSC-032, 123 N.M. 564, 943 P.2d 1017 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, vs. JESSE SOSA, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 23,562 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1997-NMSC-032, 123
More informationRESPONDENT S BRIEF IN OPPOSITION
No. IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES Warden Terry Carlson, Petitioner, v. Orlando Manuel Bobadilla, Respondent. On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO Opinion Number: 2018-NMSC-004 Filing Date: December 28, 2017 Docket No. S-1-SC-36786 STATE OF NEW MEXICO v. Plaintiff-Appellant, MARIAH FERRY, Defendant-Appellee.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. vs. No. 31,783. APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF OTERO COUNTY James Waylon Counts, District Judge
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Reports. Please see Rule -0 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also note that this
More informationSTATE V. VERDUGO, 2007-NMCA-095, 142 N.M. 267, 164 P.3d 966 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWARD VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant.
1 STATE V. VERDUGO, 2007-NMCA-095, 142 N.M. 267, 164 P.3d 966 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. EDWARD VERDUGO, Defendant-Appellant. Docket No. 25,534 COURT OF APPEALS OF NEW MEXICO 2007-NMCA-095,
More informationCOURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Humphreys, Beales and Senior Judge Coleman Argued at Richmond, Virginia JORGE LUIS REYES MEMORANDUM OPINION * BY v. Record No. 1660-05-2 JUDGE ROBERT J. HUMPHREYS
More informationCOMMONWEALTH vs. JOSHUA ROSADO. Suffolk. May 7, September 14, Present: Gants, C.J., Gaziano, Lowy, Budd, & Cypher, JJ.
NOTICE: All slip opinions and orders are subject to formal revision and are superseded by the advance sheets and bound volumes of the Official Reports. If you find a typographical error or other formal
More informationSupreme Court of the United States
No. 12-246 ================================================================ In The Supreme Court of the United States --------------------------------- --------------------------------- GENOVEVO SALINAS,
More informationThe Colorado Supreme Court affirms on other grounds the. court of appeals holding that the trial court did not err in
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm and are posted on the
More information2019COA1. No. 14CA1384, People v. Irving Constitutional Law Sixth Amendment Speedy and Public Trial
The summaries of the Colorado Court of Appeals published opinions constitute no part of the opinion of the division but have been prepared by the division for the convenience of the reader. The summaries
More informationIN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA CASE NO.: SC04-21 LOWER CASE NO.: 2D REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER S BRIEF ON THE MERITS
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF FLORIDA RAYMOND BAUGH, Petitioner, vs. STATE OF FLORIDA, Respondent. / CASE NO.: SC04-21 LOWER CASE NO.: 2D02-2758 REPLY BRIEF OF PETITIONER S BRIEF ON THE MERITS On Discretionary
More informationFollow this and additional works at:
2008 Decisions Opinions of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit 8-15-2008 USA v. Fleming Precedential or Non-Precedential: Non-Precedential Docket No. 06-3640 Follow this and additional
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED April 3, 2007 v No. 262858 St. Joseph Circuit Court LISA ANN DOLPH-HOSTETTER, LC No. 00-010340-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationSUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Cite as: 542 U. S. (2004) 1 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 02 1371 MISSOURI, PETITIONER v. PATRICE SEIBERT ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE SUPREME COURT OF MISSOURI [June 28, 2004] JUSTICE KENNEDY,
More informationSTATE V. MENDOZA, 1989-NMSC-032, 108 N.M. 446, 774 P.2d 440 (S. Ct. 1989) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Petitioner, vs. WENSESLADO T. MENDOZA, Respondent
1 STATE V. MENDOZA, 1989-NMSC-032, 108 N.M. 446, 774 P.2d 440 (S. Ct. 1989) STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Petitioner, vs. WENSESLADO T. MENDOZA, Respondent No. 18273 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 1989-NMSC-032, 108
More informationCrawford v. Washington, the Confrontation Clause, and Hearsay: A New Paradigm for Illinois Evidence Law
Loyola University Chicago Law Journal Volume 36 Issue 3 Spring 2005 Article 2 2005 Crawford v. Washington, the Confrontation Clause, and Hearsay: A New Paradigm for Illinois Evidence Law Ralph Ruebner
More informationDocket No. 29,313 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2006-NMSC-012, 139 N.M. 266, 131 P.3d 653 March 28, 2006, Filed
1 IN RE MIKUS, 2006-NMSC-012, 139 N.M. 266, 131 P.3d 653 IN THE MATTER OF RONALD D. MIKUS An Attorney Licensed to Practice Before the Courts of the State of New Mexico Docket No. 29,313 SUPREME COURT OF
More informationSTATE V. MAESTAS, 2007-NMSC-001, 140 N.M 836, 149 P.3d 933 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHARLES MAESTAS, Defendant-Petitioner.
1 STATE V. MAESTAS, 2007-NMSC-001, 140 N.M 836, 149 P.3d 933 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. CHARLES MAESTAS, Defendant-Petitioner. Docket No. 29,178 SUPREME COURT OF NEW MEXICO 2007-NMSC-001,
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 3 Plaintiff-Appellee, 4 v. NO. 34,292 5 MIGUEL CARDENAS,
This memorandum opinion was not selected for publication in the New Mexico Appellate Reports. Please see Rule 12-405 NMRA for restrictions on the citation of unpublished memorandum opinions. Please also
More informationSUPREME COURT OF ALABAMA
REL: 06/06/2014 Notice: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the advance sheets of Southern Reporter. Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Alabama Appellate
More information2017 CO 71. In light of the U.S. Supreme Court s holding in Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813
Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court are available to the public and can be accessed through the Judicial Branch s homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us. Opinions are also posted on the Colorado
More informationSTATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS
STATE OF MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF MICHIGAN, Plaintiff-Appellee, UNPUBLISHED December 22, 2005 v No. 256450 Alpena Circuit Court MELISSA KAY BELANGER, LC No. 03-005903-FC Defendant-Appellant.
More informationIN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. v. NO. 28,930
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO STATE OF NEW MEXICO, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. NO.,0 JEREMY MUMAU, Defendant-Appellant. 0 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF DOÑA ANA COUNTY Stephen Bridgforth,
More informationCRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON: THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE REBORN
CRAWFORD v. WASHINGTON: THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE REBORN By Jonathan Grossman A. THE CONFRONTATION CLAUSE In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right... to be confronted with the witnesses
More informationState of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Racine County: v. Case Nos. 2002CF763, 973,1215
State of Wisconsin: Circuit Court: Racine County: State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff, v. Case Nos. 2002CF763, 973,1215 Thomas C. Burton, Defendant. Defendant's Memorandum in Opposition to State's Motion in
More information1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO. 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: February 16, NO. 33,564 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO,
1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: 3 Filing Date: February 16, 2016 4 NO. 33,564 5 STATE OF NEW MEXICO, 6 Plaintiff-Appellee, 7 v. 8 REQUILDO CARDENAS, 9 Defendant-Appellant.
More information